Cucurbit Genetics Cooperative Report 18:45-47 (article 22) 1995
James D. McCreight
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Agricultural Research Station, 1636 East Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93905
Sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisa tabaci Genn. (SPWF) B strain, virtually destroyed the Fall 1991 melon crop in the lower desert valleys of Arizona and California (8). This whitefly strain was re-designated silverleaf whitely (SLWF), but no without controversy (1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12).
From 1991-1993, approximately 530 melon plant introductions (PI) were evaluated in naturally-infested field tests in Imperial Valley, California for resistance to SLWF. In 1991, 17 of 150 PIs from India appeared to have some level of resistance to SLWF (5). In 1992, these 17 PIs were re-tested for SLWF resistance along with 108 previously untested PIs from India plus 27 standard cultivars, breeding lines, and F1 – F2 backcross families from crosses of susceptible parents with lines identified as potentially resistant to lettuce infectious yellows virus (transmitted by SPWF strain A) or SLWF (6). None of the entries was superior for whitefly resistance. In 1993, 276 melons from Afghanistan and Pakistan were evaluated for whitefly resistance in a naturally-infested field test (7). Also included in the 1993 test were: three cultivars (PMR 45, Top Mark, GF Honeydew), breeding line WMR 29, Snakemelon from the Middle East, and progenies 28479 (an F1 from the cross Top Mark FR x Snakemelon), 28478 (a backcross from the series Top Mark FR (Snakemelon (Freeman Cucumber x Snakemelon))), and 28481 and 28482 which are backcrosses from the series PMR Honeydew (Snakemelon (Freeman Cucumber x Snakemelon )). Nine of the entries in the 1993 test showed potential resistance four weeks post-planting, but by eight weeks post-planting all entries were dead. None of the entries tested to date appears to be highly resistant to SLWF. It is, therefore, necessary to continue field testing PI for resistance to SLWF.
In 1994, a field test to evaluate SLWF resistance was planted on 26 August at the University of Arizona, Yuma Agricultural Center. This site is also in the northern portion of the Sonoran Desert and is approximately 120 km from Brawley, California the site of the three previous tests. This test included 266 wild melons from Afghanistan, India and Turkey plus six cultivars (PMR 45, Top Mark, FG Honeydew, Primo, Perlita, Mainstream), breeding lines WMR 29 and PMR Honeydew, and progeny 28481 from the backcross series PMR HD (Snakemelon (Freeman Cucumber x Snakemelon)). Plots were planted on 80 inch centers and consisted of five two-plant hills spaced 30 inches apart. The test was evaluated on a plot basis four weeks and eight weeks post-planting for number of live plants, plant size, plant condition, yellowing, leaf burn and flowering. As in previous years, plots were not treated with any pesticides.
There were statistically significant differences among the entries for SLWF resistance in the field four and eight weeks post-planting for plant size, condition, leaf burn and leaf yellowing. Eight weeks post-planting, mean plant condition ranged from 2.5 to 7.5 (Table 1). This is in stark contrast to 1993 when all plants were dead eight weeks post-planting. Top Mark had a mean plant condition rating of 5.3. PMR 45 and Mainstream which were slightly better than Top Mark,; and Perlita which was slightly worse than Top Mark did not differ significantly from Top Mark. GF Honeydew was significantly worse than Top Mark. In contrast, PMR Honeydew was significantly better than Top Mark. Eight (PI 116915, PI 125861, PI 125890, PO 125918, Pi 125951, PI 126966, PI 125997, PI 126165) of the nine best lines four weeks post-planting in 1993 had mean plant condition ratings lower than Top Mark. Progeny 28481 had a higher rating for plant condition but it was not significantly better than Top Mark. Only PI 237257 was significantly better than Top Mark.
Eighteen entries were noted in one of the replications during the evaluation to have some merit for further evaluation (entries in Table 1 noted with the x). An additional eight entries were noted in both replications to have some merit for further evaluation (entries in Table I denoted with the y).
Table 1. Mean plant condition eight weeks post-planting in response to whitefly feeding, 1994.z
Mean |
Entries |
|||||
7.5 | 237257y | |||||
7.0 | PMR HDy | 532841y | 179248x | 167266x | ||
6.5 | 344342y | 183675 | 177362 | 172381x | 164852x | 164662 |
124433x | ||||||
6.0 | 344318 | 344316 | 182951 | 179907x | 176930y | 175682 |
175675x | 175668 | 174157 | 171598x | 171594x | 164680x | |
124105 | 117162x | 28481x | ||||
5.5 | PMR-45 | Mainstream | 532840 | 344346y | 344069 | 277280 |
179900 | 179898x | 179675 | 179251 | 176955 | 176949 | |
175678 | 175676 | 172833 | 172825x | 172821x | 169320 | |
167221 | 164855 | 164637 | 109479 | |||
5.3 | Top Mark | |||||
5.0 | Primo | 503324 | 344334 | 344320 | 344307 | 293922 |
210076 | 183676 | 183674 | 183302 | 183046 | 182944 | |
180428y | 179914 | 179897 | 177355 | 177341 | 176935 | |
176506 | 174165 | 174148 | 174133 | 172827 | 172813 | |
171599 | 169379 | 169360 | 169355 | 169348 | 169322 | |
169318 | 169312 | 169305 | 167044 | 166966 | 165031 | |
165025 | 164976 | 164820 | 164611x | 164584 | 125997 | |
124207 | 116915 | |||||
4.5 | 490995 | 344341 | 344335 | 344322 | 344309 | 183301 |
183047 | 183034 | 182954 | 182186 | 179257 | 179247 | |
177353 | 177348 | 177347 | 177345 | 177336 | 176507 | |
176505 | 175684 | 174162 | 174138 | 173672 | 172819 | |
169374 | 169371 | 169367 | 169331 | 169327 | 169323 | |
169317 | 169313 | 169309 | 169307 | 169303 | 167057x | |
166190 | 165232 | 165022 | 164996 | 134822 | 164610 | |
164609 | 164432 | 164357 | 164328 | 124093 | 123688 | |
117158 | 116666 | 18100 | ||||
4.0 | Perlita | 344345 | 344344 | 344338 | 344317 | 344308 |
344306 | 344305 | 245735 | 231130 | 204691 | 183304 | |
183042 | 183027 | 182955 | 182950 | 179254 | 179245 | |
177388 | 177335 | 177334 | 176948 | 176942 | 176940 | |
176929 | 176510 | 176504 | 176503 | 176502 | 175674 | |
174168 | 174144 | 174137 | 174136 | 174134 | 173673 | |
172828 | 172822 | 172816 | 172814 | 169370 | 169366 | |
169347 | 169336 | 169329 | 169325 | 169321 | 169310 | |
169302 | 165003 | 164974 | 164664 | 164364 | 164313 | |
164269 | 136181 | 136180 | 125966 | 124445 | 124435 | |
124432 | 124430 | |||||
3.5 | 344337 | 344333 | 334330 | 344321 | 344315 | 344311 |
344303 | 258353 | 210768 | 182958 | 182956 | 182187 | |
179908 | 178880 | 177351 | 176937 | 176511 | 174176 | |
174175 | 174156 | 174150 | 172836 | 172834 | 172826 | |
169368 | 169362 | 169343 | 169333 | 139330 | 169311 | |
167058 | 167032 | 164395 | 126165 | 125951 | 125890 | |
124104 | 124099 | |||||
3.2 | .344302 | 183053 | 174151 | 125918 | ||
3.0 | GF HD | 490997 | 344343 | 344339 | 344326 | 344323 |
344314 | 344310 | 176941 | 175673 | 174140 | 171593 | |
169349 | 169344 | 169314 | 169306 | 164990 | 125861 | |
2.5 | 503325 | 183039 | 176946 | 169364 |
zCondition was rated on a 1 (dead) to 9 (vigorous, flowers) scale; LSD0.05 = 1.7; LSD0.01 = 2.2
y Entry was notable in both replications.
x Entry was notable in one replication.
Literature Cited
- Bartlett, A.C. and N.J. Gawel. 1993. Determining whitefly species. Science 261:13333-13334.
- Campbell, B.C., J.E. Duffus and P. Baumann. 1993. Determining whitefly species. Science 261:1333.
- Cohen, S., J.E. Duffus and H..Y. Liu. 1991. A new Bemisia tabaci biotype in the Southwestern United States and its role in silverleaf of squash and transmission of lettuce infectious yellows virus. Phytopathology 82:86-90.
- Gruenhagen, N.M., T.M. Perring, L.G. Bezark, D.M. Daoud and T.F. Leigh. 1993. Silverleaf whitefly present in the San Joaquin Valley. Calif. Agr. 47(1): 4-6.
- McCreight, J.D. 1992. Preliminary screening of melons for sweetpotato whitefly resistance. Cucurbit Genet. Coop. Rpt 15:59-61.
- McCreight, J.D. 1993. Screening of melons for sweetpotato whitefly resistance: 1992. Cucurbit Genet. Coop. Rpt. 16:49-52.
- McCreight, J.D. 1994. Screening of melons for sweetpotato whitefly resistance: 1993. Cucurbit Genet. Coop. Rpt. 17:83-85.
- Perring, T.M., A. Cooper, D.J. Kazmer, C. Shields and J. Shields. 1991. New strain of sweetpotato whitefly invades California vegetables. California Agriculture 45(6):10-12.
- Perring, T.M., A.D. Cooper, R.J. Rodriguez, C.A. Farrar and T.S. Bellows, Jr. 1993. Identification of a whitefly species by genomic and behavioral studies. Science 259:74-77.
- Perring, T.M., C.A. Farrar, T.S. Bellows, A.D. Cooper and R.J. Rodriguez. 1993. Evidence for a new species of whitefly: UCR findings and implications. Calif. Agr. 47(1):7-8.
- Perring, T.M., C.A. Farrar, T.S. Bellows, A.D. Cooper and R.J. Rodriguez. 1993. Whitefly identification with isoelectric focusing. Calif. Agr. 47(1):8.
- Perring, T.M., C.A. Farrar, A.D. Cooper,. T.S. Bellows and R.J. Rodriguez. 1993. Determining whitefly species – response. Science 261:1334-1335.